MI: ACLU Sues State Officials for the Fourth Time over Unconstitutional Michigan Sex Offender Registration Act

Source: aclumich.org 2/2/22

Civil rights organization says it’s unconstitutional to label people for life without individual review 
DETROIT – Today the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU), on behalf of 10 people who all previously won federal court rulings that Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA) is unconstitutional, filed a federal class action lawsuit against state officials over the latest version of the law. It is the fourth federal lawsuit the civil rights organization has filed challenging SORA in the past decade. The federal courts and the Michigan Supreme Court have repeatedly ruled that the earlier iteration of SORA was unconstitutional. 

Today’s lawsuit, Does v. Whitmer, or Does III, filed in U.S. District Court, argues that the new SORA statute, which went into effect in 2021, is also unconstitutional. Specifically, SORA fails to provide for individual review or an opportunity for removal, forcing tens of thousands of people, including people who didn’t even commit a sex offense, to be branded as sex offenders and subjected to extensive, and in most cases life-long restrictions, without any consideration of their individual circumstances, which is a violation of their due process and equal protection rights. The 193-page complaint also argues that SORA imposes unconstitutional retroactive punishment, including by retroactively extending the registration terms of thousands of people to life.

Michigan has one of the largest registries in the country; there are approximately 45,000 Michigan registrants, and almost 10,000 more who live out of state.  

“For nearly a decade, we have been fighting to put an end to an ineffective, bloated and unconstitutional registry that not only fails to protect survivors, but in fact makes families and communities less safe,” said Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan senior staff attorney. “The latest version of SORA is more of the same, and still puts tens of thousands of people on this list automatically without any consideration of their individual circumstances. What we’re asking for is very simple: consider the facts in each case before someone is tarred as a sex offender for life. Dying shouldn’t be the only way a person can get off the registry.” 

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

977 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

74 Dec 27, 2022 Main Doc ~Util – Set Deadlines/Hearings AND Order

75 Dec 27, 2022 Main Doc Appear*

Good God, will this Michigan Case EVER be finally, ultimately, permanently concluded?? 😩

(Yes, Lone Ranger, there is a limit even to MY patience!! 😖 )

End of the day update;

76
Jan 6, 2023
Main Doc
~Util – Set Deadlines/Hearings AND Stipulation and Order

Slid in on a Saturday;

Dec 29, 2022
Minute Entry for virtual proceedings before District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith: Status Conference held on 12/29/2022 (Court Reporter: None Present, Not on the Record) (KSan)

76

Jan 6, 2023
STIPULATED ORDER Moving the Start Time of the January 12 2023 Discovery Hearing ( Hearing reset for 1/12/2023 01:00 PM before District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (KSan) (Entered: 01/06/2023)
Main Doc
~Util – Set Deadlines/Hearings AND Stipulation and Order

77

Jan 6, 2023
Joint Status Report REPORT by All Plaintiffs (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 01/06/2023)
Main Doc
pdf file
local copy of pdf file

The ( main doc ) is a good read and if you are involved in Michigan’s crap I highly suggest taking the time,,,

might need a moderator to make it work properly

I found this today;

78
Jan 9, 2023
INDEX of Exhibits re 77 Report (Free) by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Plaintiffs First Requests for Production & First Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit B – Merged Document with Plaintiffs Excerpted Requests to Admit and Defendants Responses, # 3 Exhibit C – Defendants Responses to First Requests for Production and First Interrogatories, # 4 Exhibit D – Defendants Amended Responses to First Requests for Production, # 5 Exhibit E – Opinion & Order, Does II v. Whitmer, 16-cv-13137 (E.D. Mich.), ECF 121, # 6 Exhibit F – Sample of Does I Law Enforcement Sweep Information, # 7 Exhibit G – Sample of Does I Data on Registry Size, # 8 Exhibit H – MSPs Release of Information Sex Offender Registry Form (Form RI-46)) (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 01/09/2023)
Main Doc

79
Jan 10, 2023
Supplemental Joint Status Report re Discovery REPORT by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – MDOC Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit B – MDOC Response to Subpoena) (Aukerman, Miriam) (Entered: 01/10/2023)
Main doc

finally making the state show their cards

This looks like a good day;

Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 81, PageID.2360 Filed 01/13/23 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
__________________________________________________________________
JOHN DOES A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, MARY DOE and MARY ROE,
on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GRETCHEN WHITMER, Governor of the State of Michigan, and COL. JOSEPH GASPER, Director of the Michigan State Police, in their official capacities,
File No. 2:22-cv-10209 Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith Mag. Curtis Ivy, Jr.
Defendants. __________________________________________________________________
ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY HEARING
On January 12, 2023, the parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on their unresolved discovery disputes which include whether the Michigan State Police (MSP) may release non-public data contained in Michigan’s sex offender registry to class counsel in this case subject to a protective order. The non-public data includes (1) non-public information about registrants who are on the public sex offender registry, and (2) information about registrants who do not appear on Michigan’s public sex offender registry.
The Court finds that, in the circumstances here where class counsel has been 1
 
Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 81, PageID.2361 Filed 01/13/23 Page 2 of 3
appointed and seek discovery on behalf of the class, such disclosure is not barred by statute as argued by Defendants. The Court orders Defendants to disclose non-public sex offender registry data to Plaintiffs’ counsel as further set out below, subject to the terms of the previously entered protective order and any subsequent protective orders. The Court will issue a written opinion subsequent to this order.
The Court orders Defendants to produce the following information:
1. For all current registrants, Defendants shall produce public and non-public data for all fields on Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories and Requests for Production, ECF 78-1, Exh. A, to the extent it is available including such
historical data that is available.
Defendants shall provide the data as soon as reasonably possible.
Regarding all data fields and historical data that Defendants do not produce, the parties and a person(s) from the MSP with expertise in the registry database shall meet and confer. Plaintiffs’ expert may also participate in the meet and confer.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2023 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing

Probably not the right spot to post this, but Kent county sheriff is doing compliance checks 1/14/2023 Came to my house @8:52 pm 3 officers.
My wife was extremely upset. I informed the Officer I have a GPS strapped to my leg (lifetime) so why do you too visit my house? His response we don’t have access to that. Was extremely rude so shut the door and walked away.

This morning’s update;
82 — Jan 19, 2023 — Main Doc — Appear*
I’m not sure what this is for.

Well it looks to me like the Michigan state police are ordered to give up their non public information;

cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 83, PageID.2364 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 3
JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al.,
Defendants. __________________________/
Case No. 22-cv-10209
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
OPINION REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF NON-PUBLIC DATA
In this class action challenging the constitutionality of Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act, Mich. Comp. L. § 28.721 et seq. (SORA), the parties filed a joint status report identifying multiple areas of disagreement relating to discovery (Dkt. 77). The Court held a hearing on these issues on January 12, 2023. At the hearing, the Court ordered Defendants to disclose non-public data contained in the sex offender registry established under SORA, and it then issued an order memorializing this ruling (Dkt. 81).1
Defendants argued that SORA explicitly prohibits them from releasing non-public registry data. SORA states that, unless otherwise provided by the statute, “a registration or report is confidential and information from that registration or report shall not be open to inspection except for law enforcement purposes.” Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730(1). Defendants argued that a plain
1 The non-public data includes (i) non-public information about registrants who are listed on the public sex offender registry, and (ii) information about registrants who are listed on the confidential law enforcement database but not the public sex offender registry. See Mich. Comp. L. § 28.728(1)–(2).
    
Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 83, PageID.2365 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 3
reading of this statute prohibits disclosure of non-public registry information outside of the law enforcement context, including for use in civil discovery. See Joint Status Rep. at 19–22.
SORA should not be read to prohibit the disclosure of information about registrants— “[v]irtually all” of which, submit Plaintiffs, “was provided . . . by the registrants themselves,” id. at 10—to registrants’ own counsel. The court in Does, et al. v. Snyder, et al. (Does II) considered a similar question in a class action that challenged an earlier iteration of SORA, and it found that Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730(1) did not bar the disclosure of non-public registry data to class counsel. See Does II, Case No. 16-cv-13137, 6/21/21 Op. & Order at 17–22 (No. 16-cv-13137, Dkt. 121). Noting that SORA criminalizes the disclosure of non-public registry data made by all individuals except registrants themselves, id. at 20 (citing Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730(4)), the court found that it “should presume that reports available to an individual directly can also be provided to his counsel even when the public at large is barred from accessing such information,” id. at 21 (citing People v. Malkowski, 188 N.W.2d 559, 560 n.1 (Mich. 1971) (finding that statute prohibiting “‘public inspection’” of probation officer reports “should not be construed to deny access by either a defendant or his attorney to presentence reports”)). The court also observed that Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730 was intended to protect registrants’ privacy. Id. at 21. It concluded that Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730(1) did not “prevent [defendants] from disclosing to class counsel non-public registrant information for registrants who are already members of the certified class.” Id. at 22.
Similarly, Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case—who represent all individuals who are or will be subject to registration under SORA—are not barred from accessing information about their clients based on a statute designed to protect those individuals’ confidentiality. See id. Additionally, any concerns about safeguarding the registrants’ private information are alleviated by the protective order already in effect in this case (Dkt. 38).
  2

Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 83, PageID.2366 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 3
Defendants attempt to distinguish Does II by observing that the court ordered the disclosure of registry information at the post-judgment stage of litigation; in contrast, the present action is in discovery. See Joint Status Rep. at 19–22. The Court sees no significance in this distinction for purposes of interpreting Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730. Does II drew no such line, and it cited an opinion that ordered the release of information relevant to ongoing discovery despite defendants’ argument that a statute criminalized disclosure of that information. 6/21/21 Op. & Order at 19–20 (citing Dupuie-Jarbo v. Twenty-Eighth Dist. Ct., Case No. 10-cv-10548, 2010 WL 2813343, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 14, 2010) (ordering production of criminal records and limiting access to those documents to parties’ attorneys)). The Does II court did flag that the disclosure of class list information “sometimes raise[d] unique privacy concerns, especially at the pre-certification stage,” but it stated that these “concerns are reduced after a class has already been certified.” Id. at 21 n.6. Like in Does II, the class in this case has been certified. See 5/18/22 Order (Dkt. 35).
The rationale underlying the decision in Does II applies with equal force here. Mich. Comp. L. § 28.730(1) is no bar to the disclosure of non-public data about Plaintiffs to Plaintiffs’ own counsel.
   SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2023 Detroit, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith MARK A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge.

another good day!

Just posted:

84
Jan 27, 2023
Main Doc
Stipulation and order.

at least we get to see the progression of the case,,,,

Another step forward;

85
Jan 30, 2023
Main Doc
Appear*

so far I haven’t seen any steps backwards.

Today’s update:

87
Feb 3, 2023
Main Doc
Protective Order

slow and methodical wins ?

Well, its been one year and one day, since Does lol was filed and we are making very slow progress. I just wish the judge would make a decision on a injunction or make a final ruling in general and order the state to finally remove pre-sorna people once and for all and put unend to all this unconstitutional nonsense.

What does the protective order from Feb 3rd say?

Any chance the 1000’s of unlawfully prosecuted men ( mostly white) in the SCAM known as ” To Catch a Predator ” will be cleared in a Class Action and then sue the State for billions ?
Just read the Jury Instructions for each fake charge.

@all Michiganders, Just wondering if anyone has heard anything new on Does 3?. I know the courts move slow , and that nothing has probably happened since the last time @Dr. updated us on PACER. Just thought I’d check in though. Thanks in advance.

Today’s update;

88
Mar 1, 2023
Main Doc
Protective order,

slow, but forward,,,,

on a personal note, just made the last extortion payment …$550.00 total I think,,,,
30 days misdemeanor became 30yrs this coming May …

only plus to this is knowing I’m not the only one.

Here’s today’s update;
89 Mar 14, 2023 Main Doc Appear

Hope This works;

Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI ECF No. 90, PageID.2400 Filed 03/15/23 Page 1 of 1
JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al.,
Defendants. __________________________/
Case No. 22-cv-10209
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE ON RECORD
On March 15, 2023, the Court held a status conference on the record regarding the parties’ disagreement on the appropriateness of Defendants’ asking certain questions relating to example offenses registrable on Michigan’s sex offender registry during one of Plaintiffs’ depositions.
Until further order of the Court, Defendants are prohibited from asking deponents about examples of offenses registrable on Michigan’s sex offender registry, other than deponents’ own offenses. The Court directs each party to file on the record a memorandum on this issue, not to exceed five pages, by 12:00 p.m. on March 17, 2023.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 15, 2023 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

I think this is a good day,,,

Is this case ever, ever, ever going to reach a final ultimate conclusion???
It just seems like it has been going on forever. 😩

Last edited 1 year ago by David

todays update;
91 Mar 16, 2023 Main Doc Stipulation and Order
one step at a time….

@Josh. I’ve been ftr since 2006. I look to this site for encouragement and good news. I have to admit, I agree with most everyone’s view on here at different times of the day. Akin to the rollercoaster emotions I go thru being ftr. At times, I’m very grateful that I’m “allowed” to go to my grandchildren school legally here in Michigan. Other times, I’m pissed that every item I’m forced to sign to is exactly like when I was on paper. I don’t buy girl scout cookies. If I’m ftr, then that s**t goes both ways, those organizations don’t get my money. Sometimes, when registering, I’m treated like a human. Other times, in scorned as much as possible through that bullet proof glass. We’ve got no choice but to live thru it. I’ll take the small wins bc I believe that’s all we gonna get at one time. Know I’m all over the place, just spinning out today. Damnit.

Busy day today;

Date Filed
Description
94 Mar 17, 2023 Main Doc Notice – Other
93 Mar 17, 2023 Main Doc Substitution/Withdrawal of Attorney

at least we get to watch the case worm it’s’ way toward a final result, even if it means a slow pace,,,,

I see that in michigan that their are people triying to get 550,000 signatures for a proposal for a animal abuser registry to put on the ballot. People just don’t learn that these registries are nothing but hate mongering.